GLAAD’s Graddick: CNN Has Its Own ‘Evolving’ to Do on Marriage Coverage

Judging by its coverage of President Obama’s announcement that he now supports marriage equality, it appears CNN still has a little “evolving” of its own to do.

The bulk of the media’s coverage of this issue has been focused on what this statement will mean politically for President Obama and the Democratic Party — and what it means for the future of marriage equality, now that a solid majority of Americans and the president support it. This includes CNN, which had several thoughtful pieces and interviews on these ideas. For example, Anderson Cooper’s panel of Alex Castellanos, Paul Begala and Evan Wolfson broke down the issue purposefully, in a way that would help the audience better understand the significance of this announcement.

So with a wealth of political thinkers, analysts and strategists to go to — why has CNN turned to Tony Perkins three times in the last few days to represent the “other side?” He was on with Piers Morgan Tuesday night to talk about the vote in North Carolina. He appeared with Wolf Blitzer Wednesday evening to talk about the President’s support for marriage equality, and then was interviewed by Soledad O’Brien Thursday morning on the same topic.

All of this is fine, as long as Perkins is put into the proper context. Which he sort-of was by Morgan and O’Brien, but Blitzer didn’t even come close.

Here’s the crux of the problem — and the exact reason why GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project was born. Tony Perkins and others of his ilk cannot be used to exemplify those who simply oppose marriage equality. CNN is more than welcome to interview him on the issue of marriage equality, of course. His is unquestionably one of the loudest voices in the nation speaking about the issue.

But when Perkins gets interviewed, a responsible journalist needs to tell the audience exactly who Perkins is speaking for. Based on his own statements — Tony Perkins represents people who believe supporting LGBT equality is akin to being a terrorist. Who believe marriage equality is the same as bestiality. Who say that gay people are “vile,” “hateful,” “spiteful” “pawns of the enemy.” Tony Perkins does not represent people who oppose marriage equality. Tony Perkins represents those who oppose LGBT people — period.

If CNN wants that side represented in this discussion, then Perkins is absolutely the right man for the job. But they need to make it clear to the audience that that’s what he’s there for. And by not doing so, they have not told the whole story. Wolf Blitzer’s interview with Perkins is a perfect example of this.

Blitzer asked Perkins how he felt when he heard the news, that Obama supports marriage. Fine. He then asked Perkins “What’s wrong with giving gay Americans the same rights as heterosexual Americans?” Then he asked Perkins whether he agrees with Romney about giving same-sex couples hospital visitation rights. He followed it up with “What about allowing gay couples to be on each other’s health insurance policies? Would you have a problem with that?”

What on earth was Blitzer doing here? Why were we spending so much time finding out exactly which rights Perkins does and doesn’t support gay couples having? Finally he ended the interview.

Blitzer: “Do you accept the concept that gay people are born that way?” (Which Perkins answered by incorrectly claiming “there is no conclusive evidence to suggest being gay is genetic.”)

Seriously. That’s what he closed with. Blitzer had five minutes to discuss the significance of a sitting president endorsing marriage equality with one of the leaders of the country’s anti-gay movement, and the audience learned next to nothing about this issue.

Blitzer could have given his audience the answers to all of these questions in nine seconds. Watch:

Blitzer: “Joining me is Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a ‘hate group’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-gay activism.”

Boom. Done. Now the audience knows exactly who Perkins is, has a pretty good idea of where he’s coming from, and Wolf has four minutes and fifty seconds to ask the real questions that should have been asked of Perkins yesterday.

“You have said that gay people have an ‘emptiness within them.’ But now that more LGBT people are coming out and becoming respected members of their communities — to the point where a majority of Americans, including the President, are supporting marriage equality, how are you going to continue to make that case?”

“Your organization has distributed a pamphlet that depicts gay men and lesbians as physically and mentally ill pedophiles who can be cured. Members of your organization have called for gay people to be deported, and for being gay to be illegal. Do you think we’ve reached a tipping point in this country where your organization’s goals are no longer attainable? What are you hoping to gain from continuing to spread these messages?”

“You’ve said that marriage equality will ‘open the door to all manner of moral and social evil,’ and yet it’s been legal in parts of this country for eight years, it’s been legal throughout Canada for seven years, and in parts of Europe for more than a decade. And now the President says he supports it. Is it possible you’ve overstated the case here? What kinds of social evil have been unleashed so far, that can be directly tied to same-sex couples getting married?”

Follow up — “What kinds of social evil do you think will be unleashed, and what is your evidence for thinking that?”

Morgan and O’Brien in particular did a better job of establishing Perkins’ “credentials” on this topic by asking more challenging questions. But again, the audience didn’t get the full story. O’Brien asked Perkins what was the “root” of his argument against marriage equality. Perkins said something about no-fault divorce from the 1960s and how it led to co-habitation.

Let’s ignore the fact that no-fault divorce allowed more people to get OUT of marriages, and marriage equality would allow more people to get INTO them, so this is a silly argument. Let’s instead focus on the fact that he’s lying.

But he’s not going to tell Soledad O’Brien that. And he certainly doesn’t want her audience to know that.

To cable news viewers, he’s just the conservative guy who comes on sometimes to talk about gay stuff from a Republican point of view. But Perkins’ own statements will show you that those positions don’t come from politics. They are the result of pure animus towards gay people, and a belief that they’re doing the work of “the enemy.”

You can expose how extreme Perkins’ positions are by challenging them, like O’Brien and Morgan did. But you’re still not telling the whole story, unless you tell your audience what’s at the heart of those positions. We are once again asking journalists to hold anti-gay activists like Perkins accountable for their own statements against LGBT people, and to deliver that critical information to their audiences.

About the Author

Wayne Besen is the Founding Executive Director of Truth Wins Out and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth” (Haworth, 2003). In 2010, Besen was awarded the “Visionary Award” at the Out Music Awards for organizing the American Prayer Hour, an event which shined a spotlight on the role American evangelicals played in the introduction of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

14 Comments

Bill CMay 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm -

How about this for a question for Mr. Perkins: Many in the gay rights community have pointed out that you are a prettyboy and that your exteme opposition to this one subject, while ignoring problems that are 10 times larger such as divorce, seems to imply that you protest too much.
When you suggested that none of your children would be gay becuase you taught them the right way, doesn’t that imply that simply by being celibate that one is not gay? Is that what you have done with your squashed desires, Mr. Perkins?

Stephen DriscollMay 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm -

And the networks invite gay republicans like the Logs and GOProud and then offer as a counterpoint an officially non-partisan counterpoint like the Human Rights Campaign. I understand that these gay republicans are an anomaly and as such a curiosity, but gay Democrats have their own voice: National Stonewall Democrats and it deserves to be heard.

LoisMay 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm -

I agree. I had to leave the room when Blitzer was going strong with Perkins on the nonsensical questions.

MSNBC has its own problem in getting some better ‘spokesperson’ than Perkinn; he’s been on so frequently, in spite of the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated his Family Research Council as a hate group.

He spews the same blather no matter what show he’s on, leaving out the most blatant lies and insults (saving them for his FRC reports to his website and radio followers).

Last evening with Chris Matthews on Hardball he finally got his comeuppance from Matthews, maybe because the bold and right-on Barney Frank was there also and gave him hell. Get Perkins off the airwaves as a legitimate commentator, folks! Lois … straight, absolutely pro-gay-equality.

Tom CrispMay 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm -

You underscore an issue that is ever present in media – on most issues. As when Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is represented as the voice of Catholics.

Richard (the "Wing-nut")May 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm -

“Tony Perkins does not represent people who oppose marriage equality. Tony Perkins represents those who oppose LGBT people — period”

Right. So who should represent those who oppose gay marriage? Graddick does not suggest anyone. In the gay activist world, if you oppose gay marriage, you OBVIOUSLY really, really HATE homosexuals. So it’s a lose-lose proposition. In this paradigm, NO ONE can oppose gay marriage, without downright hating homosexuals. Therefore, all opposition must be silenced.(?)

Ben In OaklandMay 11, 2012 at 1:31 pm -

Richard, please deal iwth your self-hatred. we’ll all be happier.

Michael SmithMay 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm -

Richard, your argument is unclear and your conclusion simply does not follow from your points. Under what aegis do you think Mr. Perkins, or anyone else, bases his opposition to marriage equality? A desire to protect those well-loved homosexuals from the horrors of divorce?

You will need to provide a more compelling argument that somehow opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples is not tied to hatred of homosexuals. And you must give examples on how challenging the faulting logic, hypocrisy, and out-and-out distortions is ‘silencing’ the opposition. Too often that straw man is presented, that if someone distorts the truth and is called on it that is somehow robbing them of their free speech or abridging their religious liberties or they are being silenced.

I see no evidence that they are being silenced, quite the contrary. They simply are unaccustomed to having to support whatever they say, that their worldview is not automatically accepted because they said it, and that people are now seeing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) that is people like Mr. Perkins’ only basis for their stance.

Priya LynnMay 11, 2012 at 2:13 pm -

Well said, Michael.

ReallyMay 11, 2012 at 3:50 pm -

It’s like saying the Democratic Party cannot take a stance on racial justice unless journalists identify the full history of the Democratic Party.

The apparent purpose of your stance is not journalistic integrity but to control how those who oppose you are defined. I don’t care for the use of power and megaphones to define others as evil–whether that comes from Tony Perkins or you.I don’t care for “cut and paste” caricatures of those who differ.

Most of the debate is around that which does not matter. There is also much that does matter–and there are meaningful and legitimate issues of concern to both sides.

Good journalism helps lay that out. Matthews did not. But he is not expected to–nor should he be referenced as a journalist.

And I would be perfectly pleased if Tony P stopped appearing

RainbowPhoenixMay 11, 2012 at 4:01 pm -

No Really it is nothing like that. It’s saying that someone who is being given a platform should be given that platform in context.

The purpose of our stance is journalistic integrety. That is done by showing bigots as bigots. No one is “painting” Perkins as anything. He’s being shown for what he is. He is the one lying through his teeth to paint us as evil. He is the one using “cut and paste caricatures” to paint gay people as evil.

The debate is around nothing more than whether a minority should have equal rights, or continue to be treated as inferior. There is no meaningful or legitimate issues or concerns that give any reason why a minority should continue to be treated as inferior. The people claiming otherwise are lying. Those lies are well documented.

Good journalism helps lay that out. Matthews did his job as a journalist and laid out Perkins lies and bigotry for what they are.

No you would not be pleased if Perkins stopped appearing. If you would, you wouldn’t be here trying to paint him as an innocent victim who only wants to argue the “opposite side”.

ReallyMay 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm -

Uh–I think Perkins makes a lousy case which is why I would be happy if he did not appear. I don’t agree with one side. I don’t construct it in my mind as a conflict between two sides. If one (like Perkins) were truly convinced of the veracity and goodness of their views they would be able to address concerns of all without speaking out of both sides of their mouth. But such views do not meet the needs of journalists or politicians or advocates who see their needs as best met by defining and defeating demonized enemies.

I don’t know what the purpose of the Matthews interview. Something happens in the public sphere (comments by Obama and Romney) and then they toss on two voices to hollar at each other.

Not news. Entertainment to the detriment of civil society and justice.

Ben In OaklandMay 11, 2012 at 4:32 pm -

Richard WN, let me try to explain things to you.

You see everything through the lens of self-hatred. Not a good way to see yourself, let alone see reality. Ideology is an equally p**s-poor way to see anything, which is why Perky is such a douche. He knows its ideology, but its HIS ideology.

Bill O’Reilly recently said this:

“Largely because of the press, it is almost impossible to have an honest debate in this country about gay marriage “If you oppose it, you’re a bigot, a homophobe, you are a terrible person.”

My response, not through the lens of ideology, unless verifiable truth is an ideology:

Is that because almost no one does it WITHOUT being ” a bigot, a homophobe, a terrible person”?

Maybe I can explain it to you, Mr. O’Reilly. To start with, you’re blaming the wrong people. Fox is part of the press, and they have rarely made a single intelligent comment on the subject– yourself included.

As for the rest, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, including that marriage equality is wrong. Seriously, I have no objection.

Where I do object is when you don’t leave it at that, but create and say all kinds of things about gay people and marriage equality that have no basis in logic, fact, or experience. When you prefer to believe something untrue because it denigrates people that you don’t approve of, that makes you prejudiced– or a Fox news anchor. Theoretically, we have learned that prejudice is not a good basis for public policy. Opposing that is called human progress.

And when you use your belief in untrue things to hurt, disparage, and disadvantage people you don’t know and who have done you no harm, and whose lives are every bit as deserving as yours…

THAT’S what makes you a bigot.

And When you insist that those untrue things should be the basis of rational discussion about an important topic, then it makes rational discussion an impossibility.

RainbowPhoenixMay 11, 2012 at 5:34 pm -

You haven’t said anything about Perkins making a bad case really. You’re still acting as if there is a case to be made. You’ve just been bleating about how we’re somehow victimizing him because we don’t want to “dialogue” and want context for his comments.

Maybe in some parts of the country you are correct — however, you certainly are not correct in the Northeast. I know erudite thoughtful people who oppose gay marriage BUT are not hateful. I may disagree with them, but I do not think they hate me. Most of them support civil unions, some do not. Most are religious figures from churches that do not agree with gay marriage (there are many churches that DO agree with gay marriage, I feel constrained to remind you — along with various other religious groups). Simply put on an actual Ph.D. from – perhaps – a major Catholic college, or someone from a reasonable anti-marriage equality group.

I was a fundamentalist for a number of years in my teens and very early 20s after my parents died. I was ordained in that particular style of Christianity in fact. I remember when not all Pentecostal churches were conservative, when Charismatic was not synonymous with evangelical, and when the fringe of the fundamentalist movement was known, even in the movement, as the fringe. I left the movement when at least in my denomination, they purged liberals and moderates out of the faith.

I don’t know what particular denomination Mr. Perkins belongs to, but I’m quite sure that they also, long ago purged the liberals and moderates out of their structures as well.

It all started in Valley Forge PA in 1977 at Jesus 77 when Pat Robertson, a younger and poorer man then, stood on the platform in the natural amphitheater and told everyone there that they needed to take over one of the political parties (he recommended the GOP because it was smaller, he said) and then the government, because, as I recall – he said that evangelical Christianity would fail in the US if it did not use the government as “enforcement.”

Get to Know Us

Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that fights the "ex-gay" myth and antigay religious extremism.

TWO monitors anti-LGBT organizations, documents their lies and exposes wrongdoing. TWO specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating and fighting for truth, integrity, and equality for sexual minorities.